On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:27:14PM -0500, Monty J. Harder wrote:
On Apr 6, 2005 3:06 PM, Gerald Combs gerald@ethereal.com wrote:
respectively. I manage a couple of lists where reply-goes-to-list is the expected behavior, so that's how Mailman is configured.
The thing that needs to be clarified here is that the listserv should be configured to add a Reply-To with its own address, but should not delete any existing Reply-To that may already be on the message.
Is that possible? Can you have multiple Reply-To: headers? Is there a setting in mailing list software that will allow you to add a Reply-To: header, rather than overwrite the existing one?
From the 3 RFCs that I found, it looks like they don't comment on this
issue directly, just specifying what format the header should be. The third reference recommends that you really shouldn't use the Reply-To: header unless you absolutely have to.
Jeremy
Pardon the long quoted text:
From RFC 1036 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1036.html)
2.2. Optional Headers
2.2.1. Reply-To
This line has the same format as "From". If present, mailed replies to the author should be sent to the name given here. Otherwise, replies are mailed to the name on the "From" line. (This does not prevent additional copies from being sent to recipients named by the replier, or on "To" or "Cc" lines.) The full name may be optionally given, in parentheses, as in the "From" line.
From RFC 822 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc822.html)
4.4.3. REPLY-TO / RESENT-REPLY-TO
This field provides a general mechanism for indicating any mailbox(es) to which responses are to be sent. Three typical uses for this feature can be distinguished. In the first case, the author(s) may not have regular machine-based mail- boxes and therefore wish(es) to indicate an alternate machine address. In the second case, an author may wish additional * persons to be made aware of, or responsible for, replies. A * somewhat different use may be of some help to "text message * teleconferencing" groups equipped with automatic distribution * services: include the address of that service in the "Reply- To" * field of all messages submitted to the teleconference; then * participants can "reply" to conference submissions to guarantee * the correct distribution of any submission of their own. Note: The Return-Path" field is added by the mail transport service, at the time of final deliver. It is intended to identify a path back to the orginator of the message. The Reply-To" field is added by the message originator and is intended to direct replies. 4.4.4. AUTOMATIC USE OF FROM / SENDER / REPLY-TO
For systems which automatically generate address lists for replies to messages, the following recommendations are made: o The Sender" field mailbox should be sent notices of any problems in transport or delivery of the original messages. If there is no Sender" field, then the From" field mailbox should be used. o The Sender" field mailbox should NEVER be used automatically, in a recipient's reply message. * o If the Reply-To" field exists, then the reply should go to the * addresses indicated in that field and not to the address(es) * indicated in the From" field. o If there is a From" field, but no Reply-To" field, the reply should be sent to the address(es) indicated in the From" field. Sometimes, a recipient may actually wish to communicate with the person that initiated the message transfer. In such cases, it is reasonable to use the Sender" address. * This recommendation is intended only for automated use of * originator-fields and is not intended to suggest that replies * may not also be sent to other recipients of messages. It is up * to the respective mail-handling programs to decide what * additional facilities will be provided.
From RFC 2076 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2076.html)
3.5 Response control
This header is meant to indicate where the sender wants replies to Unfortunately, this is ambiguous, since there are different kinds of replies, which the sender may wish to go to different addresses. In particular, there are personal replies intended for only one person, and group replies, intended for the whole group of people who read the replied-to message (often a mailing list, a newsgroup name cannot appear here because of different syntax, see "Followup-To" below.). Some mail systems use this header to indicate a better form of the e-mail address of the sender. Some mailing list expanders puts the name of the list in this header. These practices are controversial. The personal opinion of the author of this RFC is that this header should be avoided except in special cases, but this is a personal opinion not shared by all specialists in the area.